ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Lynx Query

Go to page

Old-Salt

Hi all, my first post and Iâm hoping to have a few innocent questions answered that Iâve often wondered to myself over the last few years out in the hot sandy places, Forgive me if they come across as the uneducated ramblings of a gravel belly but my knowledge on aviation subjects is limited......

Why isnât the Lynx used more often as a troop carrier out in Afghan? With the lack of CH47âs in theatre I would of thought that Lynxâs could help share the burden of the over worked Chinook fleet? Or is it unrealistic to expect a HLS full of Lynxâs in the same way the US used Hueyâs in Vietnam and still use Blackhawks today?

How useful could the Lynx be as a bigger type of weapons platform? Iâm not talking going back to TOWâs or anything similar because obviously AH has taken over that role brilliantly. Iâm thinking more along the lines of beefing up the Door Gunners role to something like the 50.cal or Mini gun? The few times I have seen the Lynx DG in use out in Afghan, the impact of the single GPMG seemed to be pretty minimal where as I reckon if it had been a heavier weapons system then it would of brought a lot more to the party. I know it has been done at times but why not on a grander scale? Surely a half dozen or so of beefed up Lynxâs out in Helmand could take a lot of work load off the shoulders of the Apaches?

In the Balkans and Northern Ireland the Lynx always seemed to be the work horse of the Army. Yet in Iraq and Afghan Iâve barely seen them used compared to the Chinooks, is this purely down to the poor performance of the air frame in the extreme weather and altitude? If so, will this change when the new Super Lynx or Lynx âWildcatâ comes into service?

LE

It took a while to get an aircraft that was capable of carrying more than one person in summer months due to hot and high conditions. The Lynx in recent times has been used more so than other air frames, over flying hours set nearly every month. It is now also fitted with the .50cal M3M! Over the festive period, the rear crew got confirmed! The convoys love the Lynx, and I don't blame them.

LE

Lynx 9a (T800 engined aircraft) should help to redress the balance in a few of your questions. Current Mk7 and Mk9s were limited by wheezy engines that weren't terribly effective in hot and high conditions thus reducing the amount of payload it could carry. That being blokes and the type of Crew Served Weapon (.50 is a lot heavier as well as all the ammo).

Will it change when Wildcat comes in to service? Hmm, only if you want a naval aircraft with missiles doing the aggressive stuff because the army version will have nothing more than CSW (7.62mm and .50)

Old-Salt

It took a while to get an aircraft that was capable of carrying more than one person in summer months due to hot and high conditions. The Lynx in recent times has been used more so than other air frames, over flying hours set nearly every month. It is now also fitted with the .50cal M3M! Over the festive period, the rear crew got confirmed! The convoys love the Lynx, and I don't blame them.

Cheers Blob, I wasn't aware of that until now. I imagine those 50âs add quite a punch to its capability. I obviously wasnât the only one thinking about it. I understand that they were used by the door gunners on Op Barras but wondered why it wasnât the norm in Afghan.

I don't beleive you about the confirmed kills though, next you'll be telling me that their capable of dropping patrols off in the correct grid square

Old-Salt

Lynx 9a (T800 engined aircraft) should help to redress the balance in a few of your questions. Current Mk7 and Mk9s were limited by wheezy engines that weren't terribly effective in hot and high conditions thus reducing the amount of payload it could carry. That being blokes and the type of Crew Served Weapon (.50 is a lot heavier as well as all the ammo).

Cheers TLF, So when the new Lynx come into service will it be feasable to field enough airframes to lift a Infantry Coy en masse into a possibly hot HLS? The main reason I ask is that I don't understand the logic behind risking 40 odd blokes in a single Chinook, if thats shot down they all go down, spreading the man power over a number of Heli's always seemed more sensible to me and that seems to be the way the Yanks prefer to do it with the Black Hawks.

Will it change when Wildcat comes in to service? Hmm, only if you want a naval aircraft with missiles doing the aggressive stuff because the army version will have nothing more than CSW (7.62mm and .50)

I guess if the AAC start sticking missles onto the sides of Lynx's again then our "leaders" will get a cockstand about what the point of buying Apache was in the first place? Yet I think (as a clueless grunt) that theres a real role for "tooled up" Lynxs working in the gunship type role, especially when the new better performing Airframes come in.

LE

I guess if the AAC start sticking missles onto the sides of Lynx's again then our "leaders" will get a cockstand about what the point of buying Apache was in the first place? Yet I think (as a clueless grunt) that theres a real role for "tooled up" Lynxs working in the gunship type role, especially when the new better performing Airframes come in.

Old-Salt

I guess if the AAC start sticking missles onto the sides of Lynx's again then our "leaders" will get a cockstand about what the point of buying Apache was in the first place? Yet I think (as a clueless grunt) that theres a real role for "tooled up" Lynxs working in the gunship type role, especially when the new better performing Airframes come in.

Having looked up a few things reference the new Lynx, it seems that it's going to be unable to be used to carry a decent amount of troops anyway. The reports say that it will only be capable of carrying 4 blokes in the rear due to new "crash" seat systems being fitted.
Sadly, the days of cramming as many blokes onto the floor and just holding on for dear life will well and truely be gone.
I'm just trying to get my head round the defined role of the Lynx these days really, it seems to be jack of all trades yet master of none.

In Afghanistan at least the US Army are mainly using CH-47s for troop lift and UH-60s for casevac and other jobs, I think I'm correct in saying that while the Blackhawk can of course carry more than the Lynx it is also to an extent hampered by the "hit and high" conditions there.

In Afghanistan at least the US Army are mainly using CH-47s for troop lift and UH-60s for casevac and other jobs, I think I'm correct in saying that while the Blackhawk can of course carry more than the Lynx it is also to an extent hampered by the "hit and high" conditions there.

We're actively trying to get away from having more varied types of platforms in service. Yep, would be nice to have 'specialised' types to do various tasks but I'd rather we used the tiny amount of money we have more efficiently. We all have a dream sheet of what we'd like but so have most council estate pikies waiting for that lottery win. Difference is, the govnt give them more support and dosh....

In Afghanistan at least the US Army are mainly using CH-47s for troop lift and UH-60s for casevac and other jobs, I think I'm correct in saying that while the Blackhawk can of course carry more than the Lynx it is also to an extent hampered by the "hit and high" conditions there.

You could always get them to outsource it all to Vergiate or some Polish factory. Maybe get the Royal Air farce to claim that they can do all the work then offload it to BaE like they did with the Tornado work (thanks for the extra Â£5K on my redundancy package btw). If it hadn't been for Airbus ditching shitloads of connies recently the 9A's wouldn't have been available till march 2012.

In Afghanistan at least the US Army are mainly using CH-47s for troop lift and UH-60s for casevac and other jobs, I think I'm correct in saying that while the Blackhawk can of course carry more than the Lynx it is also to an extent hampered by the "hit and high" conditions there.

So is it purely down to the conditions of Afghan thats stopping the smaller airframes being used in the troop carrier role?
I only mention Blackhawks due to the way I've seen the Yanks use them while stateside on exercise. They would use Blackhawks en masse as troop lifters very much the same way you see the footage of the "Air Cav" in Vietnam. I know that similar Air Assaults were carried out like that by the 101st in Iraq and on a smaller scale by Rangers and just wondered why it didn't carry across to Afghan and like wise, why isn't the Lynx used like this within the 16AAB?

LE

Just come back from Afghan and our (tp) job involved back forward from Bastion to FOB's. Lads said one of the best rides out and back was in a Lynx....some good trips out to SQT!
As for Blackhawks, we got on well with the Pedro guys and looking in the back of theirs, its bigger, but not much.